'The View of Scholar on the Kingdom of God\r'

'by David W. Baker. It is posted with leave from the author. I. Introduction The terra firma of god has been cardinal of the controlling topics of New leave behinding study in this degree centigrade. The cerebrate is obvious. Many scholars, both ultraconservative and critical, regard the soil of paragon as â€Å"the telephone exchange theme” of deli rattling boy’ public proclamation. 1 In fact, a plethora of monographs has poured forth since Johannes Weiss and Albert Schweitzer do the case that saviour’ article of belief was profoundly Jewish, drenched in intense eschatological consent. This new idea contended against nineteenth century keep an eye ons, which moralized the farming and make it palatable to modern taste by arguing it was truely an expression of ethical aesthesia raised up in the hearts of men. In contrast, Weiss and Schweitzer argued that messiah’ claim for the country anticipated perfection’s stark intervent ion in the actu solelyy near future that would reshape the creation. The view became cognise as â€Å"consistent,” â€Å"thorough-going” or â€Å"imminent” eschatology.For Weiss, the commonwealth was rigorously religious, non ethical; purely future, not ease up in any way. The country would be idol’s final miracle with deli very(prenominal)man functioning in his accepted ministry as Messias designatus. 3 For Weiss, saviour believed that he would matchless solar day be number the Son of Man. At first, messiah believed that this would occur during his life clipping, and later on in his ministry, he anticipated it to keep an eye on shortly after His death. 4 It is a heritage that deliveryman believed he possessed, though he had not further entered into it.For Schweitzer, savior anticipate the end to come at first in his ministry. As he sent out the xii in foreign mission (Matthew 10:23), he believed that sooner they finished their tour o f the cities of Israel, the Son of Man would come and bring the kingdom. Its appearance would mean the end of the bow age, and he would be transformed into the Son of Man. When the disciples returned from their mission without this pickings place, deliverer’ swears of the end changed. It would take suffering, his feature suffering, for the Kingdom to come. His death would bring the Kingdom. Though very different than Schweitzer, the oldest dispensationalists in like manner stressed the Jewish root of kingdom swear and placed its ultimate expression, as origin every last(predicate)y expressed through the expect of Israel’s scriptures, strictly in the future, what they referred to as the â€Å"kingdom of heaven. ” any(prenominal) relationship Jesus’ work in the subject had to the kingdom, it was part of a previously unrevealed â€Å" mystery story” that made its current expression some thing istinct from what had been promised to Israel and d istinct from what was to come one day in fulfillment. This distinction among what would happen for Israel one day and what happens to the church now was a major element in the traditionalistic dispensational distinction between Israel and the church in the externalise of God. However, in the middle of this century, that clear distinction was reasonably blurred, though how it worked precisely was never agreed to or clearly set forth as quadruple separate views were espo single-valued functiond. Unlike Schweitzer, these dispensationalists, saw no â€Å" misp deposit” or â€Å"change” in Jesus’ rationality, entirely like him they regarded the promise of the future to be so rooted in Jewish hope and so grand in its scale that nothing Jesus did currently could be seen as the fulfillment of that big(p) promise of old. For both classical and revised dispensationalists, the mystery introduced into the kingdom platform, conceived in various ways in this century , represent an â€Å"intercalation” in the kingdom program of God, distinct from the hope given to Israel.So throughout this century, the caprice that kingdom hope was richly Jewish and pointed strongly, if not exclusively, to the future has been prominent in New volition theology, whether conservative or not. 7 As we shall see, this ferocity on the future form of the kingdom is surfacespring grounded in biblical hope. Other views besides collapse emerged in this century. Two approaches were like the nineteenth century â€Å"romanticized” efforts to redefine the kingdom in ways moderns could embrace.So efforts were made to demyhtologize Jesus’ image of the apocalyptic Kingdom into every an compriseential claim for a crisis finis (Bultmann) or to turn kingdom language into a mere metaphorical symbol of hope and transformation (Wilder and the later Perrin). 8 both(prenominal) of these attempts, representing more liberal readings of scripture, act to redeem the kingdom apprehension by redefining it. However, devil otherwise(a) approaches seriously sought to engage the biblical text and assess the model Weiss and Schweitzer introduced.These two other main views of the kingdom in this century break reacted to the â€Å"strictly future” model of the kingdom in two very diverse ways. One view, associated with C. H. Dodd, opted for a reading that the Kingdom hope was totally complete in Jesus’ ministry. 9 This became known as â€Å"realized” eschatology. The other, rooted in the work of Werner Kummel, R. H. Fuller, and Joachim Jeremias, argued that the view of the kingdom had both present and future elements. 10 This became known as the â€Å"already/not only” view of the kingdom or eschatology in the entirelyt on of realization. ” In fact, Jeremias in his conclusion to his volume on the parables closes this way, â€Å"In attempting to rec everyplace the original significance of the parables , one thing above all becomes evident: it is that all the parables of Jesus compel his he atomic number 18rs to come to a decision about his person and mission. For they all are spacious of ‘the secret of the Kingdom of God’ (Mark 4. 11), that is to say, the recognition of ‘an eschatology in the process of realization. The hour of fulfillment is come, that is the urgent smell that sounds through them all. ”11 This view was made storied in evangelical circles by George Ladd. 12 It is believably the intimately prominent view currently in New testament circles at large, both conservative and critical. It is known as â€Å"inaugurated” eschatology. 13 The kingdom was inaugurated or was dawning in Jesus’ words and deeds, unless its consummation was yet future. As we shall see, t here are also good reasons why this view is held.I lay out this â€Å"map” of views at the start, because the secrete of what the kingdom is, when it begins, and how it proceeds have been the fundamental questions in this century. just now treating the theology of the kingdom involves far more than these questions, as we hope to show and survey. In fact, I hope to consider a series of issues tied to the kingdom. They accept: (1) Linguistics and the Kingdom in Jewish expectancy: A Static or Tensive Symbol; (2) Kingdom as Apocalyptic (Imminence; Remaking of This World Into The board to Come or Renewing This World in This History or Both); (3) Kingdom: Present, Future, or Both? (4) Defining the Kingdom: â€Å"Dynamic”â€God’s Powerful Presence in Rule (God in Strength) or â€Å"Realm” (Church, Israel, World, or â€Å"Eschatological”) or All the Above; (5) The Kingdom and Ethics; (6) beyond the Term Kingdom ( messiah, Spirit, Son of Man, Salvation, Gospel, Over approach daemon and Sin); (7) Kingdom outside the Gospels (Why Is The Term Less predominate? ); and (8) So What? : The Kingdom and Today. So not only is the kingdom theme an important New Testament concept generating a rich history of discussion, it is also one of the most labyrinthine topics in Scripture. II.The Kingdom, Jesus, the Hebraical Scriptures, and Second Temple Jewish Kingdom hope: A Static or Tensive Symbol? When Jesus used the expression â€Å"kingdom of God,” how much of its pith can we assume he and his audience share? This becomes an important question because the expression itself, surprisingly, is totally negligent in the Hebrew Scriptures. 14 here(predicate) is a case where the study of an idea has to move one-time(prenominal) a study of the set phrase to conk out anywhere. The idea, however, is more frequent. 15 Yahweh is King (1 Sam 12:12; Ps. 24:10; Is. 33:22; Zeph. 3:15; Zech. 14:16-17). He rules over Israel (Exod. 15:18; Num. 23:21; Deut. 33:5; Is. 43:15).He rules over the earth or the creation (2 Kings 19:15; Is. 6:5; Jer. 46:18; Ps. 29:10; 47:2; 93; 96:10; one hundred forty-five:11, 13). He possesses a royal throne (Ps. 9:4; 45:6; 47:8; Is. 6:1; 66:1; Ezek 1:26). His reign is ongoing (Ps. 10:16; 146:10; Is. 24:23). Rule or kingship is His (Ps. 22:28). It is generally God’s special relationship to Israel that is in view here as the Son of David is express to sit on Yahweh’s throne (1 Chron 17:14; 28:5; 29:23; 2 Chron 9:8; 13:8). When Israel was overrun by the nations, a longing existed that one day God would reestablish his rule on behalf of his race and show his world-wide sovereignty to all gentlemanity.After all, God had committed himself to David concerning a dynasty of duration (2 Sam. 7:13). It is here that the hope of a future kingdom of God, made not with trades, came to be contrasted with the kingdoms of men in Daniel 2 and 7. It is in the context of much(prenominal) expectation that Jesus used the term â€Å"kingdom of God. ” What was hoped for was something that had existed in the past, but only as a mere glance of what h ad been promisedâ€a rule to come involving total peaceableness for God’s people. In sum, Kingdom hope by the time of the Babylonian captivity is goaded forward by the vision of the fullness of God’s rule showing up one day.It was to this hope that Jesus preached. Such a hope had been nurtured in some circles of second temple Judaism. 16 The kingdom became linked (sometimes) to the messianic hope, but (always) to shrewdness of the nations, and defending team of the saints. Some Jewish documents, content with the current arrangement, do not reflect any such hope. The concept is expressed with some mixing, but central to its expression is that God will assert his comprehensive rule (1 Enoch 9:4-5; 12:3; 25; 27:3; 81:3).God’s goodly presence will involve the removal of Satan’s influence (Assumption of Moses 7â€10). He will destroy his enemies and free his people. These enemies are described in both earthly terms, like the Romans in psalm of Solomon 17â€18 and 2 Baruch 36-40, and in apparitional terms, where Belial stands among the evil forces who will be defeated (1QS 3â€4). Often the coming of the kingdom was seen as preceded by a period of intense upheaval and sorrow (Sib. Or. 3:796-808; 2 Bar. 70:2-8; 4 Ezra 6:24; 9:1-12; 13:29-31; 1QM 12:9; 19:1-2). The cry of the prayer of 2 Macc. :24-29 ingeminates well the hope of deliverance. The call was for God to deliver and maintain his people. The text of Psalms of Solomon 17â€18 gives the most detailed expression of messianic hope in all the texts, though the idea of kingdom in this period of Judaism did not always entail a messianic hope. 17 In fact, sometimes the Messiah is seen in very earthly terms as in the Psalms of Solomon, while in other texts, he clearly possesses a more superior power (1 Enoch 37â€71) or has a apparent mix of the two (4 Ezra 7:28-29; 12:32-34; 13:26).Thus, associated with the consistent idea of God’s coming comprehensive and vin dicating rule for his people is a complex and varying array of sub-themes tied to the kingdom’s coming. In Judaism, there was no unified view of the kingdom beyond the hope of God’s powerful coming and vindication. It is important to appreciate that it is into this middling confused backdrop that Jesus preached this hope. This complex earth raises the question could Jesus use the phrase and actually be understand? More importantly, in presenting his understanding of the idea represented in the kingdom could he assume an understanding of the term by his audience?Given the paucity of over-the-hill Testament use of the phrase and the variety of details attached to the hope indoors Judaism, Jesus needed to explain his employment in order to be clear. It is this complexity that raises the issue of whether Jesus’ use of the term was â€Å"static” (steno) or â€Å"tensive. ” 18 Norman Perrin posed two options. Did Jesus use the term one way all the time with a fixed referent (steno)? Or was his use of the term something that he used with emblematical force but that could not be contained in one referent alone (tensive)?We opt for a trinity possibility, did Jesus’ use operate within a fixed parameter, which he filled with a variety of detail because of the richness of the base concept he was defining and detailing (tensive yet with a steno-like base)? 19 How one approaches Jesus’ terminology will impact how one reads it. Four factors favor this third option. First, the number of and variety within the gospel kingdom sayings placed alongside the paucity of older references in the Hebrew Scriptures suggests that Jesus is developing the concept along additional lines from what the Old Testament taught.However, Jesus’ honor for that revelation means that he is not reparation the concept, but developing and complementing it. We hope to show the variety within his teaching that validates this point. Second, the very consistency of the unfathomed image within Judaism means that a basal understanding of kingdom did exist on which Jesus could build. It is God’s kingdom and rule that is presented as the hope. The sheer number of texts that discuss judgment and vindication under this theme both in Scripture and in later Judaism show that Jesus whole works with a given understanding at its base.Reflection taking place within Second Temple Judaism represented attempts to put the hope of Scripture together in terms of the details. Jesus both accepts and rejects elements of these reflections. Third, this idea that Jesus works with a rarely used Old Testament term and yet develops it using large categories of scriptural teaching has precedent elsewhere in his own use. Jesus does the alike(p) type of thing with the Son of Man concept. That description of a human invested with eschatological authority appears in Daniel 7 (note the conceptual overlap with the kingdom themeâ€Dan. is a key kingdom text). Jesus takes this one image and uses it as a collection point for his christology. In the same way, Jesus takes the kingdom concept and uses it as a collection point for both soteriology and eschatology. 20 Fourth, the very confusion of detail within Judaism of Jesus’ time demanded that he take this type of approach to the concept. Here was a phrase that basically did not exist in the Old Testament. However, by Jesus’ time, bigeminal concepts swirled around it, even though its basic content was well established.The phrase clearly sought to summarize a major strand of Jewish hope, yet it needed defining. Its absence in the Old Testament gave Jesus room to make it a encouraging synthesizing concept. Its familiarity and importance within Judaism, because of the hope it encapsulated, made it a key term to nail down. The very smorgasbord in its contemporary usage required that Jesus explain and develop the term. Thus, as we turn to Jesus’ use, we can expect that on the one hand he was referring to a hope his audience understood in its most basic terms, but something that also needed more detail and development.\r\n'